On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 09:25:43 +0000 "Robin H. Johnson" <robb...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:31:43AM +0000, Duncan wrote: > > Micha?? G??rny posted on Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:22:04 +0200 as > > excerpted: > > > > >> Even if only the files metatdata changes, that still adds a > > >> significant cost to an rsync. > > > I wonder when it will come to the point where git will be more > > > efficient than rsync. Or maybe it would be already? > > Handwavey guess, but I've figured git to be more efficient > > client-side for some time. Server-side I don't know about, but > > I've presumed that's the reason the switch-to-git plans haven't > > included switching the default for user-syncs to git. I expect > > user/client side, git would be more efficient already, but as I > > said, that's handwavey guesses. > No, the switch to git will NOT help users, it isn't more efficient. > > They will still be best served by rsync, for a couple of reasons: > 1. metadata cache is NOT available in Git. I means using separate proto for metadata, not necesarrily git. In any case, if it comes to transferring a lot of frequently-changing files, rsync is not that efficient... -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
